Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
jtoddcoleman

City Sieging Explored

Recommended Posts

There's a whole lot of difference between "accumulating" and "reaching", that's all we're saying.

Victory points as described in the Bloodstone FAQ are meant to be accumulated.

Thats why I used "or" to differentiate them. Various Campaigns and Rulesets will obviously have different means to win the Campaign.  Personally I think its just getting caught up in the terms, which is why i said it was just semantics before. Whether its some kind of points accumulated, or amount of territory held its pretty much the same, players playing the game to reach those goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost got excited.

 

i was hoping to see some more detail on how city sieging would be, conceptually...

 

- How are sieges initiated?

- What timer(s) are being explored regarding the conduct of the sieges (ie. the SB handshakes)

- Siege weapons...Rams, Trebs and Ballistas (oh my)

- Siege bonus for attacking/defending guilds?

- Any siege specific skills being looked at? Sappers, Tunneling, Explosives and other surprises?

- We assume you can bring walls down, any other ways in? Flight? Teleport? Climbing?

- What kind of defensive fortifications are there?

 

etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess what I come down to was the scale of all of that. If the majority of your guildmates are hauling that thing and literally hours of travel away from that city when it gets attacked, then HELL YEAH! That would be epic. That version I would be very excited about. Spending days on the road, hauling this thing, worrying about the exposed city, thats an adventure, a journey! If my guild gets in vent and says "enemies here" and I can zip back in 5 minutes I think the concept falls apart.

Yeah, they'd have to balance it so it is a big decision logistically. At the same time, it can't last forever because it's designed as a vulnerability window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of lives, POI holding, and maybe number of resources gathered (forcing caravan runs)...are ones I'm expecting. Timed campaign with increasing mobs/debuffs with limited lives would probably appease both the PVP and slightly PVE crowd. But you're right, this is the only one we've seen fleshed out. Nothing wrong with CTF though, it's a classic and this brings something a little more interesting to it. I like what you said on the other post, a Bloodstone Tracker discipline rune would be the way to go for balance.

Frankly, such a scenario sounds great to me. Number of lives (kept low...5 or less) would be GREAT. Allow entry only in the first day it goes live then lock the scenario down. You lose your lives you cannot enter the scenario again. Sieges take on a whole new meaning when losing defenders means LOSING defenders. No just re-spawning right there crap, actually being able to wear them down by out killing them then waltzing in to a ghost town due to killing off everyone. THIS would be closer to a true war scenario and is perfect IMO. Limited lives needs to be a thing.


"Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, as much as I usually love the ACE updates, this was just turning the Bloodstone campaign FAQ into a video. All they actually said about sieging was that Guild 1 came back to their burning city... without even saying how Guild 2 burned it down. The actual, you know, siege.

Edited by M0rdred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they'd have to balance it so it is a big decision logistically. At the same time, it can't last forever because it's designed as a vulnerability window.

 

Ah so its a chaos creating element to shaked things up, that makes more sense. I was seeing it as an entire campaign, I missunderstood it! Thats cool. I dig that! I still think it needs to be over a big enough journey to make that travel time matter or it wont work.

Edited by Tierless

I role play a wordsmith.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, as much as I usually love the ACE updates, this was just turning the Bloodstone campaign FAQ into a video. All they actually said about sieging was that Guild 1 came back to their burning city... without even saying how Guild 2 burned it down. The actual, you know, siege.

 

yeah, would have liked to have seen the how that whole 'burning it down' thing actually worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost got excited.

 

i was hoping to see some more detail on how city sieging would be, conceptually...

 

- How are sieges initiated?

- What timer(s) are being explored regarding the conduct of the sieges (ie. the SB handshakes)

- Siege weapons...Rams, Trebs and Ballistas (oh my)

- Siege bonus for attacking/defending guilds?

- Any siege specific skills being looked at? Sappers, Tunneling, Explosives and other surprises?

- We assume you can bring walls down, any other ways in? Flight? Teleport? Climbing?

- What kind of defensive fortifications are there?

 

etc. etc.

There will be updates every Tuesday and Friday, think we need to pace ourselves...

 

Think they just wanted to use the Bloodstone ruleset to show how sieging can be used in this case, and how like they just said they give us tools and its up to us to use them and engage in compelling gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be updates every Tuesday and Friday, think we need to pace ourselves...

 

Think they just wanted to use the Bloodstone ruleset to show how sieging can be used in this case, and how like they just said they give us tools and its up to us to use them and engage in compelling gameplay. 

 

yeah, but as mordred said, all they did was make a video of the faq...not really anything new, nor really anything actually about seiging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well you can't argue about matter of taste.We'll all have a favorite ruleset at some point.

Maybe when it comes to rulesets they should consider adopting some RTs elements.As age of empires had some really sweet  game types

 

Deathmatch
 
Each faction starts with a good amount of resources (they can only spend during the campaign & nobody can carry them over to their ek)
Players start out hostile from the start with other factions.
The resources allow them to expand an empire quickly,epic battles will take place,...
 
Supremacy
 
Can't remember this one too well,think it was a mode where whoever got to the most advanced age first won.
 
Regicide
 
objective is to to murder the king of the other faction
 
Treaty
 
During a period of time no player can attack the other.
All factions work furiously to build resources for the inevitable onset of hostilities.
During the treaty you can also blockade opponents to preven shipments from their capital.
 
Exiles(one  based on my fondest memory of AOE mentioned a few pages back)
 
You are dropped in the wilderness,where powerful gigantic hunger beasts roam.
The goal is to find fellow suffers,find a safe spot to set up camp & overcome those nasty beasts.
Edited by Tipsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tully! Can someone type out what Tully said, I didn't quite catch the actual words....

 

Jk. Jk.

 

I like this bloodstone ruleset!

 

"Let's call the Sons of Dawn guild one.  They have a bloodstone tree in the city of Festrune, which is surrounded with fortifications.  On a Thursday evening, the city of Festrune's bloodstone cycles, changing to a state of 'unprotected'.  For the next few hours, the city can be attacked.  A bloodstone spawns on the tree.  It has a target location that is relative close, near the local quarry.  The defenders have a choice - to defend the city, or to escort the bloodstone to the objective to gain victory points.  They opt to send a small party to sacrifice the bloodstone, but on the way they are ambushed by Kane's Fist, guild two.  The ambush works.  Guild two kills them all and takes the bloodstone.  The stone points them to a new location, and the guild two players head off to that location and try to sacrifice it for their own victory points.  Guild one regroups and decides to go after the bloodstone.  They get reinforcements from the rest of their guild and ambush the party from guild two to retrieve the bloodstone.  The party from guild two drops the stone and flees - it was a trap!  Guild one returns to find the city of Festrune has been completely destroyed by the rest of guild two.  Guild one didn't leave enough defenders to protect it.  The tree is destroyed, the buildings are on fire, and guild two is now on the way to cash in the three new bloodstones that just spawned when they destroyed Festrune."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this concept seems pretty weak to me after reading it. I was hoping for more of a war simulator than 3 month long CTF maps. As others have said, it really does sound like some long drawn out MMO battleground match.

 

I thought the game would be more about a war of attrition. People explore, build and conquer in the spring/summer. When winter comes, resources are at a minimum, the NPC's are threatening and the war of attrition really begins. Without the time or resources to build back up, you are forced to cut your losses, retreat and try to hold your ground. All while trying to do the same to your enemies. This makes everything you have built up to that point MUCH more valuable, as you need to defend it, or lose it forever. When groups are forced into a corner, this is when you will see them ally up and push back against their agitators.

 

Running around with blood stones that drop from trees and delivering them to specific points sounds extremely boring and unrealistic to me, but I am sure we will see many other rule sets come forth in the coming months. Honestly, games like WAR Online seem way more war-like than this concept. It was a more linear, tug-o-war mechanic, but it was 100% focused on pushing your enemy back to their castle and then crushing it for all the rewards and glory. I would like to see a less linear approach to this, rather than a kiddie feeling CTF match.

 

We'll see how it progresses. 


Vidrak - Member of


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well we don't know how tree's work...can you have more than one, what affect do they have on territory, etc. We also don't know how victory conditions will give players incentive to cooperate...or not.

 

I could see it being like Age of Empires, when someone gets close to building a wonder they just get gang tackled by everyone else to keep them from winning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.  In actual gameplay, the tactical decisions made by each team prior to the siege would likely provide a huge "swing factor" and dramatically alter the outcome.  

 
 
We need this uncertainty to keep combat exciting & emergent.To keep it like an adventure.
When you enter a swamp,it could be key to escaping the enemy,a shortcut,a detour,you might be swallowed up by the swamp,..
Also something to think about is what to consider when setting up a tactical plan.
For example the enemy has a strong wall up and your scouts & infantry is being slaughtered
How will your faction respond?retreat & focus elsewhere? send a slow siege archetype with some bodyguard soldiers?
It doesn't always have to be so extreme as a swing factor to keep it interesting..
Something to be mindful about is enough,like the danger certain other units impose upon you
When the situation looks grim ,do you choose to face the dangers of a dominant enemy or the dangers of the swamp on the right,...
 
Tactical decision making & what are some nice RTS elements to foster that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the potential risk/resources involved in this scenario?

 

The guild with the city is risking their entire city - which i assume they've spent days or weeks building, if they lose, it's gone forever and they have nothing.    MASSIVE risk.

 

So what is guild 2 risking?  It seems that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose.   Furthermore, guild 1 can't even take revenge on them, because they have no city or anything of value.     Not risking anything makes for bad world.

 

Sometimes those small bands of outlaws or mercenaries don't have much of a choice. For instance, they might not have a sufficient amount of people to defend any territory, let alone a city like a larger guild. They would have to be played like guerrillas or even 'non-state actor' terrorist factions to be enjoyed. Perhaps it seems like the risk/reward is skewed in relation to the larger guilds with more territory to defend from your perspective, but in reality the large guilds aren't garnering much risk vis-a-vis the small 'outlaws' either as their great number disparity provides a great amount of security. The smaller entity would have to completely out-think and out-play the larger faction to prevail, or they would be crushed. The potential rewards seem great and the potential risk seems lower relative to a landholding guild, but the fact that the potential for success would be so low the small guild would actually be accepting a great risk. In reality, a small band like this will probably fail a dozen times due to the number disparities and any defensive fortifications held by a larger guild before they ever come close to succeeding; when/if the small band succeeds, the payoff will of course be vast, but I think it's acceptable when you consider the amount of skill, preparation, and practice it would require to attain success in such a scenario. I know from playing within the 'small band' role under similar conditions that most players cannot handle it - they will fail a few times against superior numbers, say "impossible," and give up. It's far easier to enjoy the security provided by large numbers in a PvP game than it is to play as a small band of outcasts, mercenaries, or opportunistic thugs.

Edited by managainsttime

4H4LmCE.gif

Scourge of the Shadowbane community, Public Enemy No. 1 to the SBEMU Forum Moderators, and member of the "Suppressed Person" faction on the Ubiforums. The man responsible for hooking up Ceska and CheckYoTrack. Also a 21-time World Heavyweight Champion of Shadowbane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly sure what are the limits of creating a design system that is gameplay emergent.

 

But what if the bloodstone don't generate victory points since that might turn into a huge factor in the "core" gameplay of a particular world.
Instead having it fortify (let's say) the bloodstone tree(or other important structure) in the fortress that somehow resulted to winning or losing.

 

Or it could give the particular group or faction within an area a limited time buff straight after they obtained it, which will then be indicated through either visual or sound that the bloodstone has been obtained and allow the opposition teams to decided whether to retreat and re-strategize or keep fighting on.(?)

Though it must be worth it for faction/guild to send people out to fight for it. not sure about points though, point system is a really iffy thing.

 

Just an idea.

Edited by XephRy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...